get_schemaGet detailed information about a schema including its full JSON Schema definition. Optionally include usage details showing which endpoints reference it. Requires project context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| specId | Yes | Public ID (GUID) of the API specification | |
| schemaId | Yes | Public ID (GUID) of the schema | |
| includeUsage | No | Include usage details showing which endpoints reference this schema (default false) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation is present, and the description's 'Get' aligns with a read operation. No side effects or additional behavioral details are mentioned, but the annotation covers the most relevant aspect. No contradictions exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, direct, and free of unnecessary details. It efficiently conveys the core functionality and optional features without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it returns (detailed info, JSON Schema definition), optional usage details, and the prerequisite of project context. No additional information is needed to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (specId, schemaId, includeUsage), resulting in 100% coverage. The description adds context about the tool's output (full JSON Schema definition) and clarifies the purpose of includeUsage (showing endpoints referencing the schema), making the parameters more meaningful.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool gets detailed schema information including the JSON Schema definition, and optionally usage details. It uses a specific verb 'Get' and names the resource 'schema', distinguishing it from related tools like list_schemas or get_shared_schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It mentions the prerequisite of requiring project context and explains the optional includeUsage parameter. However, it does not explicitly contrast with get_shared_schema or other schema-related tools, though the 'Requires project context' implies a project-scoped schema rather than shared. Overall, the guidance is clear but not fully explicit about alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The tools are mostly distinct with clear descriptions. Some pairs like get_header_policies vs get_resolved_headers or get_environment_verification vs get_monitoring_sync_status could be slightly confusing, but the descriptions clarify scope and purpose.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, create_, update_, manage_, etc.). Even the few bare verbs like 'search' and 'set_context' are consistent with the naming scheme.
With 165 tools, the server is extremely heavy. This far exceeds the 'too many' threshold of 25+, making it difficult for an agent to navigate and select the right tool efficiently.
The tool surface covers a very broad API lifecycle domain: specs, environments, test cases, monitors, mock servers, security, governance, documentation, and team management. Read and write operations are present across most areas, with no obvious missing core functionality.